USING STRUCTURED GROUP FEEDBACK SESSIONS TO EVALUATE UNDERGRADUATE PHYSIOTHERAPY EDUCATION IN RELATION TO PHYSICAL ACTIVITY PROMOTION AND PRESCRIPTION

PurposeAn evaluation of students’ perspectives of the theoretical and clinical content of BSc Physiotherapy programmes in relation to physical activity (PA) and exercise promotion and prescription (EPP).

RelevanceThe future of physiotherapy may lie in ensuring graduates are experts in the prescription of ‘exercise as medicine’. An undergraduate curriculum that provides the skills to deliver effective exercise programmes for healthy individuals and those with chronic disease is essential.

ParticipantsA purposeful sample of final year BSc Physiotherapy students (n=63) from 3 Irish Universities.

MethodsThree Structured Group Feedback Sessions (SGFS) were conducted by two facilitators. Each SGFS was scheduled for 90 minutes and was divided into 3 distinct stages suggested by Gibbs et al (1988).Stage 1: Students work aloneIn each university setting, student were presented with 3 opened ended questions in relation to the (i) good and (ii) bad features of the course and what they would like to see (iii) changed in terms of PA and EPP education. Stage 2: Students work in small groupsThe group was divided into sub-groups of 6 to discuss their views from stage 1 and record majority agreement. A chairperson ensured that all group participants had equal opportunity to contribute and discussion scribe compiled a list of the major issues that were agreed by the group. No comment was recorded which was not a majority view. Stage 3: Students work as a whole groupOnce each sub- group had composed an exhaustive list, the group came back together and the facilitator opened a final discussion by summarising the main points gathered from stage 2. The co-facilitator recorded any additional issues that arose out of the plenary sessions of the whole group. The class was then invited to make adjustments to the overall picture which had been built.

AnalysisData comprising whiteboard, flip-chart and field notes were transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions were summarised and returned to the participants to check for accuracy and comment on the interpretation of the report. Analysis using ‘Framework Analysis’ methodology was conducted (Ritchie and Spenser 1994).

ResultsMain themes emerging from the analysis were (i) course content, whereby students identified a lack of emphasis on exercise progression and EPP in relation to specific patient populations (ii) methods of teaching where the usefulness of case studies and role play were emphasised together with problems associated with large student instructor ratios (iii) the usefulness of clinical tutor lead tutorials and suggestions for greater emphasis on community care and group classes.

Conclusion Students identified a need for further education in relation to PA and EPP, together with suggested teaching strategies to facilitate this learning in the academic and clinical environments. Use of the 3 staged SGTS process allowed for modification of extreme or minority views and afforded students the opportunity to reach a group consensus on the issues they considered to be most important in a safe environment.

Implications Results of this study provide useful data for academic and clinical educators to inform future developments in Physiotherapy Curricula. EPP and PA have increasing relevance to contemporary practice in particular in securing a central role for Physiotherapists as exercise specialists.